Not By Works

I agree there were many who understood the gospel, and in the context of the Catholic teachings on penance and topics such as the sacrifice of the mass and deeds of merit/treasury of merit Luther was absolutely more in line with it than the Catholic church either then or now.

But the gospel is not that all are accepted into the kingdom, nor is it the Calvinist teaching of the great exchange. The gospel is not that Jesus "paid the full price for our sins." The gospel is that sins are forgiven and we have an opportunity to freely serve the King. Luther separating sanctification from justification is divorced from the complete picture of the gospel.

The difference is whether one believes Jesus was raised from the dead, or if one simply believes in the resurrection. With Luther and protestant doctrine on the gospel there is room to boast, as it's all about agreeing with the right things. In protestantism it is not the salvation of Jesus but the believers belief that is meritorious. This is insidious but it's ill effects are aparent when we see groups like Westboro pop up and view themselves as "the elect" and preach hatred of everyone else.

Believing Jesus was raised from the dead, rather than believing in such a resurrection, necessarily changes how one behaves. Garbage collecters begin collecting garbage for God, lawyers navigate the law for God, bankers bank for God. Not special works done out of piety but works none the less springing from the conviction. And their works complete their faith in the way that Jesus found the Sardians deeds incomplete.

The gospel is not that Jesus "paid the full price for our sins."

Not really sure how you can make this statement in light of this verse and many others.

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
1 Peter 2:24

Works, works, works.

It is Grace, Mercy, faith I personally focus on for God. Whatever works I may do will be what He has laid on my heart and what the Holy Spirit has helped me to do.

The statement is in the modifier. I do not deny Jesus died for our sins, nor that He bore our sins. What I deny is that the bearing of sins was the perfectly just punishment demanded by God for our sin and that God's justice is satisfied in the cross.

It is the theological baggage I take issue with, not the actual Biblical statements.

I will be honest your posts confuse me... but is seems to me that if God's justice was not satisfied at the cross then we are still under the wrath of God?

I will be honest your posts confuse me... but is seems to me that if God's justice was not satisfied at the cross then we are still under the wrath of God?

And yet David wouldn't have been saved until Christ preached to him:

1 Peter 4:6
For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

I am finding things you state contradictory?

To some people almost everything is debateable just remember his first and second commandments were to love God first and thy neighbor second..

I'd suggest you read Amos to get an idea of who the wrath of God is directed against. The cross atoned for sin by removing its penalty, but the question is whether that penalty can be seen as the just penalty imposed by God, or something else entirely. It seems to me that men's justice recognizes mitigating factors, things like the punishment should fit the crime and the need for competence of both consequences and the wrongness of the act.

Yet many act as if God's justice is totally different in kind, blindly raging at the smallest indignity because of His own majesty. There is wrath for all sin, but I'm not sure it's all God's wrath. It seems to me God's justice should more perfectly recognize the factors and that in order to truly be perfect it would aim to be restorative rather than punitive.

If the cross were God's perfect justice satiated then it raises two possibilities, both of which require further theological invention. On the one hand, there is the possibility of limited atonement where Jesus only paid the price for those who are elect. On the other, universalism where Jesus paid the price for all so all are saved.

The question is, what was atonement in the primary sacrifices Jesus is linked with(Passover, peace, sin, and yom kippur)? None of them principally addressed the wrath of God or had the sacrificial victim taking a judicial punishment. Instead they focus on the blood as the instrument and the death as incidental. The blood purifies and cleanses and it identifies the offerer with God's people.

The smoke is what is linked with God's wrath, and while Jesus is said to be a fragrant offering the context links that statement more with the cereal offering and other food offerings than the burnt offering.

What wrath God has towards us is forgiven while Jesus' sacrifice provides us restoration and healing.

wow man....again you choose to ignore context and conflate scripture........I suggest you actually study AMOS because it is squarely DIRECTED at a particular KINGDOM and group of people!!!

I've done plenty of study on Amos. While you're right it's directed at a kingdom all of the minor prophets reveal the types of things God actually gets wrathful about.

I certainly don't ignore context, but I find it quite amusing that when the Bible says something you don't like context suddenly becomes important. I asked 11th this and didn't get a response so I'll ask you the same, why do you contextualize the OT and James but treat Paul as universal? Why is Romans, a letter directed at a particular church with particular problems, treated as a universal treatise on soteriology? Why does context only matter to you when it helps you explain away challenges to your doctrine?

It tells me two things if you have to ask that question...

a. You are not very honest with scripture

b. You may say you study, but you for sure deny context, and must skew the bible to get the end result you seek instead of allowing it to speak!

Your answer says a lot more about you than anything else. No skin off my nose, though.

My answer is truthful.....and if you have even bothered to actually open your eyes genius, I have said from day one on this site that CONTEXT determines the aim of scripture....the post you directed at me before this one misses the mark by 5 light years in describing my use of and promotion of context....like I said...you are not very honest!

The only time I see you or 11th use the word "context" is when you're trying to make plain words of Scripture say something else because they disagree with your doctrine. You quote Romans, Ephesians, Galatians in little tidbits without considering their context because they don't challenge what you already believe.

I've stated contextual issues in James that point to the opposite of what you claim it to be saying and instead of actually discussing the context you insist on your reading and quote Paul to supersede James.

I've stated contextual issues in Romans that challenge the typical reading of it, again you've done nothing to address them.

So quit using the word "context" like it's some kind of magic spell that twists the words of Scripture to better suit your preferred doctrine.

It's especially laughable that you behave like a bully on here while claiming to be doing so in the name of grace. Your attitude and behavior demonstrate nothing of the grace you claim to know.

The only time I see... the word "context" is when you're trying to make plain words of Scripture say something else

I don't agree circumcision and animal sacrifice were necessary for salvation, no. That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the law, as the promises attached to that law involved God dwelling among the Israelites and keeping their kingdom strong not things like eternal life.

Eternal life has always come through faith, and faith alone. Now, that could be as Luther argued because it is faith that truly fulfills the law but I don't believe the law(as in Sinai covenant) is related to eternal life. The animal sacrifices purified the temple and its furniture so God could continue to dwell, and circumcision, the Sabbath, and Kashrut served to identify the people. They are no longer necessary not because God is saving in a different manner, but because He has moved the temple and revealed His true people.

If you believe circumcision was never necessary, are you saying you believe that a Jew during the OT time could refuse circumcision and still be fine with God?